This sounds like an exam question... How does one teach nations? Much have a large classroom - and here I was thinking that massive amounts of students was too much to handle!
John Amos Comenius – 'the teacher of nations' set the basic rules of learning any subject. What do you know about these rules and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age?
Why do I have to know them when I am quite sure you would be happy to tell me how I should be running my studio, no matter what I know or say ? *anticipates a link to an article or youtube video showing me what a sinner I am and the miracle that awaits me if I only repent from my evil, evil ways*
If you running studio with no knowledge about the basics of teaching, it is, honestly your problem and problem of your students.I am not going to provide you with any links.Freedom of choice: to be ignorant and be proud being ignorant - or not to beThere are plenty materials on Comenius and if you think it does not deserve your time, Comeniuse cares less.
oh 4u, I was teasing you a bit !
Thank you!
In fact, I am here to learn!
You're welcome .Then perhaps you will get busy reading the forum archives and letting us know what you know about these posts here, and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age? Sorry M4u, I couldn't quite resist.
Here I am to learn how to teach teachers
And my recommendation is that you study your "audience" !
In other words, M4U, you are saying that in teaching you move from the known to the unknown. You move from the real concrete, to a symbol which is still concrete, to the abstract which is not known.I believe that this is a very common principle, though at times it has been bastardized. Nonetheless I would assume that this is how teachers proceed. It seems a sine qua non.
Your next post does not address how teachers are currently teaching, or how the teachers reading this forum are teaching.
this is exactly how all the music teachers are teaching today
I'm sorry? "What" is exactly how all music teachers are teaching today? Do you mean that all music teachers go from concrete to concretely symbolic to abstract? Or are you refering to something else?
Your next post has a picture of a keyboard on the bottom, the letters AB, an A in the treble clef on the left hand side, and a B in the bass clef on the right hand side. It indicates some of the things that a student must learn over time, but it does not show how teachers are teaching this material.
Your question was whether teachers teach according to the principles of Comenius. You have then said those principles involved a progression from:concrete, to symbolic but recognizeable, to abstract
I imagine that at least some teachers would teach according to those principles. They are basic principles of modern pedagogy and have been so for at least 50 years.Do "all" teachers approach teaching the same way? How is that possible?
It was tricky question, because current music education completely disregard all the rules of didactics .
M4U, you are funny. Do you really believe that your "trickiness" was undetected ? Your "trickiness" is probably better classified as "ulterior motives" . And, actually, that was kind of my point in my first response. No matter who I am, no matter how I teach, you have already decided on my behalf that I am not doing it correctly and what I need to be doing instead -- so, why would I actually even entertain the idea of entering this "discussion" with you as though we are actually discussing anything at all ? You have already a preconceived notion about how the world works and where you fit into it, and where everybody else fits into it.
Musicrebel4U, are you not making a lot of assumptions? I believe that you are trying to reach the teachers on this board and communicate with them. I think many would be insulted by a "trick question". You state that teachers "drill, drill, drill" and liken this to cramming. But DO all teachers "drill drill drill". Do all teachers use the approach that you are surmising?I am not a student of the piano foremost: it's my second instrument. Because I am also an educator one of the piano teachers in another forum asked me to try her program which was written for self-learners but incorporates how she teaches youngsters. The program was dynamic, interesting, and it created a deep understanding of a number of things through experience (guided activities). There were no drills of the information provided in your diagrams. In fact, note names did not feature at all initially. I found it highly effective.Above all: It used those principles that you have just outlined: the 3 stages.I have been given a book called "Piano Proficiency" by Louise Guhl, and have since discovered that Ms. Guhl was a principle pedagogue of piano teaching. There is no drilling in Guhl's system. I am enthused. Within the first four pages of the book, I am capable of sight reading without key signature but knowing that key signature, transposing while sight reading with both left and right hand. This book was not written for children, but for music students for whom the piano is a second instrument so it is more abstract. Nonetheless she does not drill, and she teaches by having students EXPERIENCE things.Neither of the piano teachers that I have encountered does mindless drilling. Neither of them fits the stereotype.On my own instrument I have encountered teaching which is intelligent, well thought out, experience-based, progressive, and every much along the ideas of Comenius. In my limited exposure I have already encountered teaching which does not follow the path that you say "everyone" follows.Currently the main dialogue is happening between you and one student, with no teacher in sight, yet the dialogue is supposed to be among teachers. One teacher has asked repeatedly for their actual approaches to be examined by dint of the content of this board. I don't think that without such exploration there will be much of a dialogue. Since I am a student musically speaking I am bowing out.Are you sure that "all" teachers teach as you say?I would say in my training that the ideas of Comenius are the prevalent ones, and that what I have encounterd among music teachers runs contrary to what is being attributed to them, and more in line with Comenius.
Well, Imagine yourself in shoes of Dmitry Mendeleev – a creator of Table of Chemical Elements. How would he treat the other chemists in regard of what they are doing without his invention?
And, I have to say at this point that, something I find to be rather ironic is that you treat other teachers as pond-scum and the scorge of the world, claiming to be here to teach teachers how to teach, yet you throw your so-called teaching principles (as far as I understand them) completely out the door when dealing with "other teachers" ! You don't even bother to study other teachers individually, but instead put everybody into a particular class, where in that "class," nobody knows anything about music nor how to teach it. Yet, in another post, you specifically claimed that students are not empty vessels that need to be filled but have already a relationship with music within them -- what about us ? Aren't we still those very people you are talking about ? Or, have we somehow morphed out of having our own relationship with music and life, and into this bottom-dwelling pond scum that knows nothing about anything of importance ? C'mon, M4U -- you need to be smarter than that, or at the very least, you need to be more tactful !You are essentially saying, over and over btw : Hey ! Idiots ! You are idiots ! Let me show you why ! People are important and need to be taught that they are smart and able, but you are not ! Idiots ! Do you teach like this ? No ? That's why you are idiots !And then you proceed to present your case, expecting that smart and talented people are going to fall right into your precious hands. C'mon ! Seriously ? You are either hoping that people can't think for themselves and will just believe everything you say, or you are actually seeing that nobody else is capable of developing anything of importance -- or at least not in comparison to you ! -- and start your pitch with this at the forefront of the whole thing. Don't you want smart and talented people to come to respect you on their own deciding ? Or, are you just afraid that they/we will not decide this on our own, so you must decide it for us ?Well, don't be afraid M4U, I already think you are a genius -- you just need to be smarter in how you handle it .
Erhmmm... no . All I have to do, in this case, is be in my own shoes. However, I can imagine that you imagine yourself in many shoes that are in fact, not your own .
So, here I am trying to bring this important message to you and learning from responses how to make it clear.
Musicrebel4U, are you not making a lot of assumptions? I believe that you are trying to reach the teachers on this board and communicate with them. I think many would be insulted by a "trick question".
You state that teachers "drill, drill, drill" and liken this to cramming. But DO all teachers "drill drill drill". Do all teachers use the approach that you are surmising?
I am not a student of the piano foremost: it's my second instrument. Because I am also an educator one of the piano teachers in another forum asked me to try her program which was written for self-learners but incorporates how she teaches youngsters. The program was dynamic, interesting, and it created a deep understanding of a number of things through experience (guided activities). There were no drills of the information provided in your diagrams. In fact, note names did not feature at all initially. I found it highly effective.Above all: It used those principles that you have just outlined: the 3 stages.I have been given a book called "Piano Proficiency" by Louise Guhl, and have since discovered that Ms. Guhl was a principle pedagogue of piano teaching. There is no drilling in Guhl's system. I am enthused. Within the first four pages of the book, I am capable of sight reading without key signature but knowing that key signature, transposing while sight reading with both left and right hand. This book was not written for children, but for music students for whom the piano is a second instrument so it is more abstract.
Nonetheless she does not drill, and she teaches by having students EXPERIENCE things.
Neither of the piano teachers that I have encountered does mindless drilling. Neither of them fits the stereotype.
On my own instrument I have encountered teaching which is intelligent, well thought out, experience-based, progressive, and every much along the ideas of Comenius. In my limited exposure I have already encountered teaching which does not follow the path that you say "everyone" follows.
Currently the main dialogue is happening between you and one student, with no teacher in sight, yet the dialogue is supposed to be among teachers. One teacher has asked repeatedly for their actual approaches to be examined by dint of the content of this board. I don't think that without such exploration there will be much of a dialogue. Since I am a student musically speaking I am bowing out.
Are you sure that "all" teachers teach as you say?
I would say in my training that the ideas of Comenius are the prevalent ones, and that what I have encounterd among music teachers runs contrary to what is being attributed to them, and more in line with Comenius.
I get the impression that one of your basic "rules" of teaching is that you don't push theory first, but only as questions are asked and as the need arises.
This is another point where I observe you step out of your teacher's hat and stop abiding by your very teaching principles, when addressing other teachers. For some reason, with other teachers, you start with theory first (this thread being a good example).Why is that ? In this case, I liken fundamentals of teaching as similar to fundamentals of music and will label them both as "theory."
When it comes to pedagogy and teaching, you assume that questions are there before they are asked, and begin to address them with pedagogical "theory." This leads me to believe that you are not actually aiming to teach, at least not in the manner that you claim that your teaching principles (and the ones that everybody else should follow) are built upon, but that you have something else in mind when you post.
And then you wonder why people don't just "get" your "claimed" message loud and clear ?
Music teachers have to deal with traditional Grand Staff, which is very difficult to comprehend. Only the most creative survive and make it successful. I am not doubting the creativity of teachers – I am doubting the existing foundation ....................I am talking about music education in general. Why in order for us to learn music we have to be 'lucky' to find a good teacher? Because the system is weak.
M4U, I gave my comments primarily to act as a bridge so a dialogue could start, but since I'm a student I will step out.I cannot identify with these things as a student. No teacher, creative or otherwise, taught me to read the grand staff.
Topic: Music teaching and basic rules of didactics and cognitive development. 